alexanderdmitri

I think jQuery gets a bad name because of it's historical context. Newer devs in the field view it as outdated and seasoned devs have seen the mess it can lead to when just sprinkled in here and there for this and that reason; and as frontend work became increasingly more programmatic and complex, this sort of approach becomes pretty hard to maintain.

Because frameworks/libraries like Angular and React were largely adopted due to this issue, people who have had success with them (or just need to justify the switch), have come to see these as part of the solution and jQuery as part of the problem.

If you're an interviewer who only sees jQuery on an application, you can use this as a chance to get to see what the candidate thinks about the evolution of web development. See if they can have a reasonable discussion about trade-offs made on choosing one over the other. This will expose their critical thinking skills and values as a developer and you may even get a new perspective yourself. To be honest, I'd rather work with someone who could have this discussion rather than just blindly adopt what everyone else is using ... well ... just because.

Yeah but that was from when he was young and not as smart.

The network activity on this page is ridiculous.

+1 for karma lust

One thing that I never see brought into the equation but I believe is fundamental to human "general" intelligence is emotional response. It's hugely instrumental in terms of us deciding what's important to investigate, which input to analyze and how to mold our output. The importance of emotion in guiding and driving our learning is most evident in children, during the first four or five years of life of development.

I think a huge leap forward in the field could be made by modeling an emotional system similar to ours. It also seems like it would be an incredibly difficult and fuzzy problem to solve.

Addendum: After thinking about it for a few minutes more, I bet an implicit understanding of cause and effect could be derived by a system designed to try to optimize it's emotional state

yeah, except this is why it's happening now: https://features.propublica.org/ibm/ibm-age-discrimination-a...:

An article about the piece: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/9kgx7p/painting-m...

This is a very good point. It's like trying to trouble shoot a system failure in a bullet train based on a 19th century document detailing train locomotion.

Health insurance companies are actually pretty close to casinos the way they operate.

Healthcare in America is basically gambling at this point.

great, thank you!

Can you source this?

it's not a binary equation though, if data collection were illegal, content and service providers would be much more likely to try other solutions

Thanks for this, exactly what I've been looking for

my favorite is the last one:

> Tokia.io token sale is live! Secure the -35% discount for early investors.

spot on given the (imo) insane speculation that's been building around block-chain currencies for the past year.

Though the abstract nature of the field often benefits from analogical representations, I think this one detracts. I don't see how our current hodgepodge list of role titles we've already borrowed from other fields (architect, developer, designer, scientist, ops, product manager, evangelist(?!), quality assurance, security specialist, chief information officer (not to mention wizards, code monkeys, Java baristas (aka the bespeckled missionaries (they don't C# for whatever reason) who walk through your neighborhood every once in a while to knock on doors with warm smiles hoping to share their beliefs on the one true Oracle and some bizarre philosophy of enterprise scale spiritual development involving complex and brittle structures and subservience to feudal and [frankly] regressive class structures that most favor a nepotistic inheritance procedure designed to chiefly empower their children and a small circle of similarly interested functionaries that seem hellbent on oppressing the rest of the system), unicorn jockeys, tech debt lawyers, and whatever you call that long-gone contractor who years ago thrust a bizarre moonscript backend into the core of your team's architecture like Excalibur waiting for an Arthur everyone hopes won't happen along because rock that asshole stuck the sword in happened to be the kingdom's cornerstone and even the slightest nudge will cause the whole system to precariously sway ...)) can be summarized with a doctor / nurse dichotomy.

Even if writing, practicing and administering software legally required a degree and license, I think this still detracts. Maybe useful once software powers organic, higher-order life forms, at which point I imagine our doctors and nurses will be entirely software driven anyway[0].

[0] http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Hologra...

lol, that's awesome. now we just need to train it to write the articles.

Honesty is all about the right level of abstraction. Knowing the difference between feeling you are right, being right, and the right way of conveying each of those things are all separate issues. If they seem intertwined what that really means is there are race conditions in the processing and it's going to lead to some static.

I think the way to look at it is soft skills can compliment the hard skills, but any engineer w/out the hard skills has nothing to compliment:

engineer w/ hard skills = solid;

engineer w/ hard + soft skills = powerful;

engineer w/only soft skills = useless;

As a US citizen, I see just handing out cash as a terrible way to fix this poverty. With the way our society operates, I'd put my money that whatever UBI is distributed, most of it will be leveraged upwards in creative and manipulative ways without very many productive gains.

Poverty is a complex issue because there are so many different causes behind it and they are often intertwined. A few reasons off the top of my head: systemic oppression and social prejudices, mental health, desperation, poor self-perception, lack of opportunity, irresponsible handling of money, ineffective upbringing, bad set of cards, medical problems (and the often accompanying debt), terrible education, malnutrition, a system that largely blames the impoverished for being so, rich people who get to set their own definition of charity for financial gain, and the list goes on and on ...

It'll never happen, but I think a much better solution would be defining a set of basic needs where more money != better quality: healthcare, food, education, housing.

Sounds crazy, doesn't it? Especially that last one.

In 2007, this was not true for 5,309 people in the United States[0]. Considering 3,258,411 people were born in the United States in 1972[1], I think the question can be more accurately answered with:

"For ~0.163% of the United States population, yes, life will end at 35. I am not sure about globally, maybe slightly higher, but globals are bad practice anyway."

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/mortfinal2007_worktable310...

[1] https://www.infoplease.com/us/births/live-births-and-birth-r...

As a parent and someone who has always found social media unpalatable, I think this isn't new or specific just to FB. The competition to control your children's mind begins early and never stops when it comes to any institutionalized power mechanism, that's how power is reinforced and retained over generations.

This is just another thing you'll need to teach your children about as you do your best to ready them for the world and help them become independent thinkers.

I find my long-term memory is limited when it comes to technical details. What has served me best is just storing a pointer in most cases and making sure I have access to the reference.

If it's been 6 weeks since I've worked on/with x and now I need to work with x again, what's important is that I have a process to reproduce x or build on x. I'd argue this is a better practice than trying to commit everything to memory because human memory is pretty corruptible. I also find this helps with complex problems because you don't have to deal with the devil upfront, you just have to be able to do some high-level fuzzing.

That being said, I think it's important to commit mistakes to memory because those are embarrassing to repeat.

this + tmux => sweeet

This probably doesn't have to do 100% about money. When the govt wants some data, there aren't as many doors to knock on now.

Hi, good point! I added some clarification. It's a little vague, but also intentionally so.

This is really cool!

Is there a way to link/trace the cards across columns?

I've been wanting to build an app for a long time that would help fiction writers, somehow encourage creativity but also provide structure without getting to complex or inhibitive. Also port gitflow principles into literary undertakings (man it'd be so cool to submit merge requests to existing works and fork fork stories, run commit diffs to the evolution of a work). Allow you to tag sections so you can isolate things like a character's dialogue or descriptions to review consistency and/or desired evolution.

It's one of those things that has become so built up in my head I'm pretty sure it's not feasible anymore.

Anyway, seeing projects like this makes me happy :) Thanks for sharing.

We're different creatures in an analogous sense, sure.

I'm simply raising privacy concerns I have and I believe it affects us all. I was disappointed this model did not address it. Invasion of privacy, profiling and tracking are big issues in my opinion and I would be curious to know why you don't think they are worth mentioning.

I do think phone calls, and spoken word in general, are highly effective. You are not helping yourself socially by refusing to speak to people who are calling you and if none of your friends or loved ones call you, there is likely a problem (I don't know your exact circumstances). I also think it's a fair claim that people are much more likely to value a hand-written letter over a chat forum message. You are offering something tangible!

I'm just proposing alternatives to socialization on a platform like FB which really is, I think, hurting natural and more effective means of communication and self presentation. I'm not saying there isn't a good place and use for internet chatting and what-not, those are great social tools too.

Just to repeat, my main point is I don't think we should have our social lives commoditized. I do not think we should be profiled and tracked across the internet. I see this ending very badly. That's all.

I think you're missing my point. Google and Facebook are conditioning the population to say no big deal. It's creeping normalcy. Remember when Sergei was trying to make peeps comfortable with Gmail? [para-phrasing here:] "It's not a person reading your email, it's just a robot." Well now the robot is a neural net and I'm pretty convinced (if it's not already) that neural net will start feeding data to other nets built by other powerful institutions that decide whether you get higher education, loans, whether you're likely to be guilty or innocent, &c. Didn't provide enough data, well hell, that's suspicious, throw a red flag.

And people will accept it because we're pragmatic. And those who don't just need to grow up and start pleasing the AI.

A whole new industry will pop up from the ones training nets in the first place. Hey do this and that and our calculations will read you better, you'll get the results you want. We just suggest you don't talk about these things at all, don't shop at these stores, don't have this name or be associated with that demographic ...

I'll try to address each of your questions / points individually.

The quote from me is probably too strongly worded on my part, but I really don't see the added value. You may have made it instrumental to your social life, but my personal opinion is the price is too high. Unfortunately, when the majority of people choose to pay the price, it switches from being a personal choice to being an expected exchange. This is fundamentally about the right to privacy and it's not something a rational person would trade away for something that can (and has been!) achieved without the terrible price tag.

Usually if something provides a high value, like a car, you invest in it so you can see the returns. My qualm is not with the messaging service per say (I take more issue with the mass posts people make about their kids or others without consent, I believe that's wrong and cheapens inter-personal relationships). I mean, you have to realize they take your keyups, they know when you've reworded before sending and they're tying what you might think of as a personal conversation to the valuable profile you're consciously helping them build and capitalize on.

I've been around a lot of people using messenger. I've found using the phone or email somewhat increases the likelihood of something tangible happening (general follow through) as well as thoughtfulness of the replies I receive. Obviously that's anecdotal and the jury's still out. I guess my question is, how can you assert Facebook would help someone's social life?

I'm not debating your happiness with it. I'm just a little surprised your so comfortable using it.

More direct means would include chatting in person, the proverbial snail mail (you got to admit, receiving a letter from someone you respect/love/h[oh]ld dear is great), phone call or text message. Except for the last one, each one contains a ton more social queues than a chat group.

That's great and that is a positive contribution to your life, but it follows the same formula I'm very used to hearing:

usecases = ["group events", "messaging", "staying in touch with people", "networking", "checking in once a month", &c()];

singleUsecase = pickWhatevs(usecases);

otherStuff = pickNotWhatevs(singleUsecase, usecases);

responseStr = "Well, I only use it for " + singleCase + ". I rarely use it for " + otherStuff + "."

As a former employee you might have more insight than I do, but how exactly has a glorified message board which doesn't charge its users become one of the richest companies in the world?

Sure they're a bit interested in the fruit growing hobby and that network, but they're also very interested in the ways you "hardly use the site" and they're even more interested in the things your doing when you don't even know they're still watching you. Even more interesting, you're actions on and off their platform can be correlated with heavy users of the site to infer traits they'll assign to you and sell on, true or not.

At the end of the day, the way the species is evolving with the internet, giving someone permission to follow you around the web and collect that data on you is the same as giving them insights into your inner psyche, the majority of what composes your reality, and the things you value most in your life, among other things.

These are things we should have a right to offer explicitly, not implicitly surrender.

[edits to elaborate on a couple points and add helpers to the why I use FB excuse]